EVERYONE is familiar with the “climate change caused the Syrian war” meme that invaded the climate lexicon in another attempt to ping man-made global warming climate change as the root cause of anything and everything that is bad in the world.

CLIMATE CHANGE helping to create ISIS was listed as #49 on the The Lid‘s “official list,” of stupid things global warming enthusiasts have blamed on their failed theory:

COLOURLESS, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant food ‘carbon dioxide’ as the cause of ISIS and the Syrian war was qualified by the usual suspects – Prince Charles, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, the Obama admin, Former Secretary of State John Kerry, the climate-theory obsessed mainstream media and of course, the authority that matters most – academia…

CHARLES B. Strozier Professor of History, The City University of New York; and Kelly A. Berkell Attorney and research associate, Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice believe that ISIS formed because of a severe drought in Syria from 2006-2010 and that drought happened because of—you guessed it—Climate Change.

As the Obama administration undertakes a highly public, multilateral campaign to degrade and destroy the militant jihadists known as ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State, many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria’s extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad’s government. Rage at the regime’s callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians.While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather.

A new study from the University of Melbourne, the Georg Eckert Institute and Freie Universität has found several problems with research related to assessing the propensity for war amid environmental changes due to ‘global warming’.

THE study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found such research suffers from “a streetlight effect.”

“We demonstrate that research on climate change and violent conflict suffers from a streetlight effect,” reads the study. The “streetlight effect” is when researchers search for answers where it’s easiest, instead of where the right answer might be.

“Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables,” reads the study.

Linking global warming to violent conflict became in vogue after Syria erupted in violence in 2011. Researchers quickly began suggesting the drought that wreaked havoc on rural Syria served as a spark for civil war.

The Obama administration considered global warming a national security threat, and top officials often repeated the claim that violence in Syria, and the rise of ISIS, stemmed from climate factors.

CLIMATE realists/sceptics called it right again. Don’t expect an apology or correction from the mainstream media, Hollywood, the Obama administration, Prince Charles, the UN, academics or Leo DiCaprio for misleading you on global warming climate change, yet again.

Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.

Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.

Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.

Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda

In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.

According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.

IPCC is false

The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”

“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”

Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.

Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.

“Because they have a political agenda”

Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”

Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”

Junk surveys produce “nonsense”

When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.

On the subject of publishing research results:

“Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”

In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”

Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.

“In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”

Cooling over the next decades

Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.

In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.

“Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”

FROM Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky: “Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.” (Quote also attributed to Karl Marx and Goebbels.)

HILLARY Clinton and Barack Obama both seriously engaged with Alinsky’s ideas — Clinton knowing him personally. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky.

What did Alinsky actually believe?
Rules for Radicals was Alinsky’s last book, completed the year before his death, and it laid out his organizing philosophy in detail. Its centerpiece is a list of rules of “power tactics,” meant as basic guidelines for community organizers (Obama) and community activists (Clinton):

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

MOST of these are elaborated upon in more detail in the book. For example, on #5, Alinsky notes, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react (Trump tweets!) to your advantage.”

IT’S not hard to see the link between the modern Left’s tactics of identity politics; PC, division, smear and slime and Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

Monitoring Twitter, a number of people are reporting some download sites aren’t working. So, since WUWT has been setup to handle such things (Climategate for example) here is the memo in full. Some might say “Why is WUWT getting into the polictical mess that has nothing to do with climate?”.

Well, if you monitor Twitter like I do, you’ll see that many of the major players in climate alarmism are Tweeting about it. I figure if Michael Mann can rail about it…

DavosIt hasn’t been this bad since the 1999-2000 meeting. As President Trump might say, they could do with some of that good ol’ global warming. Then again, if you go to a Swiss ski resort in January…

The global economy and geopolitical tensions are taking a back seat to a more immediate problem at this year’s Davos summit of political and business leaders: heavy snow is burying the venue, as Reuters reports.

High in the Swiss alps on Monday, on the eve of the opening sessions, many of the roughly 3,000 delegates struggled to reach the ski resort. Part of the main train line into Davos had been buried in snow over the weekend, forcing people onto buses, and helicopters were disrupted by poor visibility.

Some pre-summit meetings were canceled or delayed as the first waves of delegates waded through snow-blanketed streets with luggage, looking for their hotels…

“The pity is that Alarmist media cannot seem to educate the public, and doesn’t do a little reading-up on the subject, but rather seems determined to horrify. Horror is not helpful, unless your intent is to herd people with a sort of bullying. To paraphrase FDR, in truth we have nothing to be horrified about but horror itself.”

A truly glorious read on the wonders of the Arctic wilderness and its wildlife, to the not so wondrous world of the politicisation of climate ‘science’…

One thing that has fascinated me, in my study of sea-ice, is how swiftly vast areas can freeze over. This is apparent from many sources.

The captains of whaling ships, tempted north by whale’s habit of hunting in the rich ecosystem that exists at the very edge of the ice, sometimes appear like cowards for turning tail and fleeing the refreeze far before the whales chose to depart. (You might think whales would know best when to depart, for they suffocate when trapped under ice). However this choice does not seem so foolish once you understand larger whales could break up through a foot of ice, (with smaller beluga whales following and using the air-holes big whales created), while, without a strong following wind, a sailing craft could be bogged down and halted by a skim of ice only an inch thick. And despite all precautions, the ice formed so…

TWITTER has become a hotbed of debate between staunch believers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and those sceptical of the supposed adverse impacts of mankind’s energy emissions on planet Earth.

THERE is little grey area or middle-ground in often heated debates, with the CAGW camp blaming the burning of fossil fuels, namely coal, not only for a >1 degree celsius warming of the atmosphere since 1850, but on literally anything and everything that moves, shifts, spins or tilts upon contact with colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide!

HERE’S s a list of everything caused by global warming climate change as of 2012:

ANY good scientist is a sceptic; if he or she is not, then he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmist, is to accuse anyone who does not believe in man-made climate change as a “denier”, a heretic, a blasphemer. This is the language of religion, not science.

SCEPTICS do not ‘deny’ the existence “climate change” or “global warming”. The earth’s average temperature has been increasing and decreasing since the beginning of time. A climate sceptic is basically ‘sceptical’ of how much of the recent warming can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels versus natural variation. And, in fact, any slight warming might actually be beneficial. After all, cold weather is twenty times more deadly than hot weather, according to a study published in the British journal The Lancet.

MOREOVER, sceptics acknowledge the remarkable benefits of the essential gas-of-life, carbon dioxide, that has become so politically demonised with a religious zeal rivalling the Spanish Inquisition.

MOORE looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:

A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.

“StormSignalSA” is a rancher and climate sceptic from the great land of South Africa. A recent tweet of his captured the attention of many for a wonderful response to a climate catastrophist who derided “Storm” for his stance on coal.

IT is a brilliant retort in defence of Mother Nature’s mighty black rock that has allowed us to improve human well-being and make the world a better place…

ALTERNATIVE energy sources, “unreliables“, are either too expensive, too difficult to access, or simply too inefficient to achieve any meaningful results for the most impoverished.

A huge energy source it is too. The same energy fuels this African in my efforts to stop the madness, the genocide even, whilst doing my bit to feed the 7 billion.I once wrote this to a christian disciple of the church of climatology. pic.twitter.com/H0Yx5zP8JL

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Protesters Jeer as Trump Team Promotes Coal at U.N. Climate Talks

By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
Nov. 13, 2017

BONN, Germany — The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.

The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.

George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when…